Hi,
Sorry to pick this point up 18 months after you raised it. I have posted suggestions for improving Treeshare in anothe thread here and want to expand on the issues relating to marriages. I think that there are issues in both directions, RM to Ancestry and Ancestry to RM, but I only want to deal with RM to Ancestry here.
I don’t think that there is a bug in RM, just a design which is far from optimal. I am also sure that RM doesn’t need anything new from Ancestry to improve its design significantly.
Consider a situation like this where you are adding a new family, including a spouse and marriage, to a person already matched between Ancestry and RM
When you are part of the way through adding the new people, before accepting any changes, you get the following options when you click to add another child
RM asks you whether you want to add the new child (daughter2) as an existing child or link her to Son1 or Daughter1. Neither of these two already exist in the main RM database, but you still have the chance to link to them. In fact you are given the option to link to any child who either already belongs to this family in the database or whom you have selected to add, but not yet added.
But when you want to add the marriage, you get this message
Treeshare should treat the marriage event as it treats the new child, allowing you to choose any spouse who already exists in the database or whom you have already selected to add.
When you click to accept changes, RM should use a database procedure which adds the new spouse first, and the marriage afterwards.
I don’t see why this should be hard to do. To my mind, it would be a significant improvement.
Alan